1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid ad hoc – July 2011 Date: 21 July 2011 Discussions during July Plenary meeting in San Francisco NameCompanyAddressPhoneemail Bruce KraemerMarvell5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1-321-751-3988bkraemer@marvell.com Tuesday Abstract: 1 – SGIP 2 - NIST PAP2 3- ITU Liaison Thursday Abstract: 1- FERC 2 - NIST PAP2 3- ITU Liaisons [WG18 docs 49,51,57

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission FERC Order FERC Issues Order on Smart Grid Interoperability Standards The FERC issued its Order on Smart Grid Interoperability Standards,and it has concluded that there is "insufficient consensus" on the initial five families of standards that were sent by NIST for FERC adoption in accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Furthermore, the FERC encouraged stakeholders to actively participate in the NIST interoperability framework process to develop standards for interoperability and to refer to that process for guidance on smart grid standards. Finally, FERC terminated its proceeding in docket RM11-2-000.Order In reaching its conclusion not to institute a rulemaking proceeding to adopt the standards, the Commission agreed with comments that registered concerns about cyber security deficiencies and potential unintended consequences from premature adoption of individual standards. The Commission did express its support for the NIST process and did encourage active participation by stakeholders, citing planned improvements to the NIST process including "an enhanced SGIP role in reviewing existing as well as new smart grid interoperability standards, the establishment of a preliminary testing process, the establishment of a process to identify cyber security design principles, and efforts to better address reliability and implementation concerns within the SGIP process." May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 2 x

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission FERC decision of July 19 FERC Terminates Consideration of Smart Grid Interoperability Standards July 20, 2011FERC Terminates Consideration of Smart Grid Interoperability Standards On July 19, 2011, following a lengthy consideration of the smart grid interoperability standards proposed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), FERC terminated its consideration of the five “families” of proposed interoperability standards, concluding that there was a lack of consensus regarding the standards.FERC terminated its consideration of the five “families” of proposed interoperability standards NIST had initiated the development of smart grid interoperability standards following the Energy Independency and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Under the EISA, if FERC is satisfied that there is “sufficient consensus” surrounding the standards developed and proposed by NIST, FERC must institute a rulemaking to adopt those standards and protocols “necessary to insure smart-grid functionality and interoperability.” Last fall, NIST filed the results of its work on smart grid interoperability standards with FERC. FERC then held two technical conferences and asked for comments from industry stakeholders on the NIST proposal. Following this process, FERC concluded that there is insufficient consensus to adopt the proposed standards at this time, pointing to “nearly unanimous” comments from the industry regarding cyber security concerns and the potential unintended consequences from adopting such standards too soon. For these reasons, FERC stated that it would not institute a rulemaking proceeding regarding the proposed smart grid interoperability standards. Nevertheless, FERC reiterated its support for the NIST process, and urged stakeholders to actively participate in NIST’s work on smart grid interoperability standards, particularly in those areas related to cyber security. FERC terminated its proceeding in docket RM11-2-000. April 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report http://ferc.morganlewis.com/2011/07/20/ferc-terminates-consideration-of-smart-grid-interoperability-standards/

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission FERC Order http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Smart_Grid_Interoperability_standards.pdf April 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report SUMMARY: Section 1305(d) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directs the Commission to institute a rulemaking proceeding to adopt such standards and protocols as may be necessary to insure smart-grid functionality and interoperability in interstate transmission of electric power, and regional and wholesale electricity markets once it is satisfied that the work of the National Institute of Standards and Technology has led to “sufficient consensus” on smart grid interoperability standards. The Commission finds that there is insufficient consensus for the five families of standards under consideration. For this reason, the Commission will not institute a rulemaking proceeding at this time with respect to these standards and terminates this docket. In this order, the Commission encourages stakeholders to actively participate in the NIST interoperability framework process to work on the development of interoperability standards and to refer to that process for guidance on smart grid standards.

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission PAP02- Phase 2-SDO Proposal –r0 July 21 topic Intro Thanks to Ron Cunningham for his diligent preparation of requirements for completion of Phase 2. We propose that it is time for the SDO’s to take a more active role in constructing the analytic Proposal/Request We request authorization from PAP2 members to form an “SDO subcommittee” committed to completing delivery of an operational analysis framework, and related descriptive text, in time for presentation to the Dec 05, 2011 SGIP board meeting. Goals Deliverables will include: Definition of propagation model, ability to calculate quantity of wireless equipment required to cover a given demographic/topographic area and description of statistical confidence in reported numbers Utility/GRID Input Requirements Information regarding actor quantities by type, relative locations, topography, data traffic loads Synchronization “SDO subcommittee” will report progress to during currently scheduled biweekly PAP2 calls Logistics “SDO subcommittee” will convene a series of teleconferences scheduled to optimize SDO participation but open to all PAP2. SDO subcommittee will self organize, assign/delegate work. develop a milestone based project schedule. Webinar facilities will be needed. Membership “SDO subcommittee” is a volunteer group initially underwritten by WiMAX, IEEE 802, ATIS & CTIA. Additional wireless SDO participants will be recruited

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Feedback on ITU Liaisons Any feedback during July meeting? Continue to collect comments on conference calls

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission ITU SMART GRID LIAISONS WG18 Documents https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0058-00-0000- summary-of-itu-r-documents.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0049-01-0000- working-document-towards-a-preliminary-draft-new-report- itu-r-sm-smart-grid.docx July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 7

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission ITU SMART GRID LIAISONS WG18 Document 51 DRAFT NEW QUESTION ITU-R [PWRGRD]/1» Impact on radiocommunication systems from wireless and wired data transmission technologies used for the support of power grid management systems. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 8

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission ITU SMART GRID LIAISONS WG18 Document 51 decides that the following Questions should be studied What are the technical and operating features and the characteristics of wireless technologies and devices in support of power grid management systems? What are the data rates, bandwidths, frequency bands and spectrum requirements needed support of power grid management systems? What are the interference considerations to radiocommunications associated with the implementation of wireless and wired technologies and devices used in support of power grid management systems? How will spectrum availability be affected by interference associated with widespread deployment of such technologies and devices? further decides that the results of the above studies should be included in Recommendations(s) and/or Report(s); that the above studies should be completed by 2016. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 9

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission ITU SMART GRID LIAISONS WG18 Document 57 Scope This Recommendation provides the objectives, system characteristics, functional requirements, service applications and fundamental network functionalities for mobile wireless access systems providing communications to a large number of ubiquitous sensors and/or actuators scattered over wide areas in the land mobile service. The key objective of WASN systems is to support machine-to-machine service applications irrespective of machine locations. Objectives 2.1Support of M2M service applications The mobile wireless access system should support a variety of machine-to- machine (M2M) service applications such as automation and efficiency enhancement of business works, environment observation, remote control of plant facilities, social security and the reduction of environmental impact, irrespective of their locations. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 10

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission SAMPLE FROM 049R1 Smart grid communication network technologies Various types of communication networks may be used in smart grid implementation. Such communication networks, however, need to provide sufficient capacity for basic and advanced smart grid applications that exist today as well as those that will be available in the near future. Assessing communications needs of various smart grid applications requires an understanding of 1) the “control loop” timeline of the application, 2) the amount of data that needs to be transferred at any particular time, 3) the number and location of devices with which communications must be maintained, and 4) the overall communication capacity of the proposed communication system. An application’s timeline and tolerance for latency in transferring and analysing data or control signals is critical to determining appropriate communications capability. For example, the gathering of metering data for daily meter collection can tolerate a latency period of many hours (and even a period of several days in the case of monthly billing). But real-time, control-oriented applications such as voltage control, integration of distributed generation resources, and distribution switching require latency periods of no more than two seconds. The control loop timeline refers to the overall length of time to make a decision and initiate action relevant to a particular control application. For instance, a control decision that needs to be made with real-time information every 30 seconds cannot utilize a communications link that takes 60 seconds to transfer the related data. For example, distributed protection systems use multiple isolating switches and relays that disconnect power from a section of the electric distribution system in the event of a failure or short circuit. Such disconnection helps reduce the size and impact of any resulting outage, prevent widespread damage to the system, and minimize public safety hazards. In order to make control decisions, these systems rely on widely dispersed devices that access information about real-time conditions at other devices connected to the distribution grid. Distributed protection systems respond to events of only several milliseconds in duration and must communicate information just as quickly in order to perform their functions effectively. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 11

12. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 12

13. SGIP MONTHLY REPORT Prepared by: SGIP Plenary Leadership and SGIP PMO Report covers activities for May, 2011 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PMO/2011-05_SGIP_Monthly_Report_FINAL_V1.0.pptx

14. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Standards Being Addressed by PAPs Priority Action PlanStandard(s) or Guideline(s) PAP 0 - Meter Upgradeability Standard NEMA Meter Upgradability Standard: SG-AMI 1-2009 PAP 1 - Role of IP in the Smart Grid Informational IETF RFC PAP 2 - Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid IEEE 802.x, 3GPP, 3GPP2, ATIS, TIA PAP 3 - Common Price Communication Model OASIS EMIX, ZigBee SEP 2, NAESB PAP 4 - Common Scheduling Mechanism OASIS WS-Calendar PAP 5 - Standard Meter Data Profiles AEIC V2.0 Meter Guidelines (addressing use of ANSI C12) PAP 6 - Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables ANSI C12.19-2008, MultiSpeak V4, IEC 61968-9 PAP 7 - Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines IEEE 1547.4, IEEE 1547.7, IEEE 1547.8, IEC 61850-7-420, ZigBee SEP 2 PAP 8 - CIM for Distribution Grid Management IEC 61850-7-420, IEC 61968-3-9, IEC 61968-13,14, MultiSpeak V4, IEEE 1547 PAP 9 - Standard DR and DER Signals NAESB WEQ015, OASIS EMIX, OpenADR, ZigBee SEP 2 PAP 10 - Standard Energy Usage Information NAESB Energy Usage Information, OpenADE/NAESB ESPI, ZigBee SEP 2, IEC 61968- 9, ASHRAE SPC 201P PAP 11 - Common Object Models for Electric Transportation ZigBee SEP 2, SAE J1772, SAE J2836/1-3, SAE J2847/1-3, ISO/IEC 15118-1,3, SAE J2931, IEEE P2030-2, IEC 62196 PAP 12 - IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping IEEE Std 1815 (DNP3); IEEE P1815.1 (plus anticipated dual logo with the IEC) PAP 13 - Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization IEEE PC37.238; IEEE C37.118.1; IEEE C38.118.2; IEC 61850-90-5 (plus anticipated dual logo with the IEEE) PAP 14 - Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping IEC 61968-3, MultiSpeak V4 PAP 15 - Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home DNP3 (IEEE 1815), HomePlug AV, HomePlug C&C, IEEE P1901 and P1901.2, ISO/IEC 12139-1, G.9960 (G.hn/PHY), G.9961 (G.hn/DLL), G.9972 (G.cx), G.hnem, ISO/IEC 14908-3, ISO/IEC 14543, EN 50065-1 PAP 16 - Wind Plant Communications IEC 61400-25 PAP 17 - Facility Smart Grid Information Standard New Facility Smart Grid Information Standard ASHRAE SPC 201P PAP 18 - SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and Coexistence SEP 1.0, 1.x, 2.0, Transition and Coexistence Best Practices May 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report

15. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Key SGIP Program Activities Upcoming Governing Board Votes –CoS Process– Vote ended May 12, Approved –PAP 05 – July, 2011 – AEIC Metering Guideline –PAP 11 – July, 2011 – Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid –PAP 04 – Sept, 2011 – OASIS WS-Calendar –PAP 12 – Sept, 2011 – IEEE 1815 (DNP) –PAP 15 – Sept, 2011 – Broadband PLC standards (IEEE and ITU-T) Upcoming Plenary Membership Votes – June 14 to July 7 –PAP 00 – NEMA Meter Upgradability Standard –PAP 01 – Role of IP in the Smart Grid –PAP 02 – Wireless Guidelines NISTIR –PAP 10 – Standard Energy Usage Information –PAP 11 – SAE J1772 - Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler –PAP 11 – SAE J2836 - Use Cases for Communication Between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid 2011 SGIP Meetings –F2F Meetings July 12-14: Face-to-Face in Montreal December 5-8: Face-to-Face in Phoenix –Virtual Meetings: Sep 16; Nov 10 Additional Major Activities and Milestones –NIST Framework V2 collaboration/development/input with SGIP organizations –Identifying key testing and certification programs to address in 2011 –Creating conceptual architecture based on prior work; conceptual model, national goals workshops, and requirements workshops May 2011 Activitie - PMO Monthly Report

16. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Upcoming SGIP Governing Board Meetings (attendance not required) Date Time Location Registration Date Time Location Registration July 11 & 12 Informational: 6:30pm to 9:00pm Eastern; Business: 8am to 11:30am Eastern Part of the Summer Face-to-Face, Montreal, QC. Sept. 8 1pm to 4pm Eastern Virtual Nov. 10 1pm to 4pm Eastern Virtual Dec. 5 8am to Noon Local Part of the Winter Face-to-Face, Phoenix, AZ July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 16

17. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Key SGIP Program Activities Upcoming Governing Board Votes –CoS Process– Vote ended May 12, Approved –PAP 04 – July, 2011 – OASIS WS-Calendar –PAP 05 – July, 2011 – AEIC Metering Guideline –PAP 11 – July, 2011 – Communication between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid –PAP 12 – July, 2011 – IEEE 1815 (DNP) –PAP 15 – July, 2011 – Broadband PLC standards (IEEE and ITU-T) Upcoming Plenary Membership Votes –PAP 00 – NEMA Meter Upgradability Standard –PAP 01 – Role of IP in the Smart Grid –PAP 02 –Wireless Guidelines NISTIR –PAP 10 – Standard Energy Usage Information –PAP 11 – SAE J1772 - Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler –PAP 11 – SAE J2836 - Use Cases for Communication Between Plug-in Vehicles and the Utility Grid 2011 SGIP Meetings –F2F Meetings July 12-14: Face-to-Face in Montreal December 5-8: Face-to-Face in Phoenix –Virtual Meetings: May 26; Sep 16; Nov 10 Additional Major Activities and Milestones –NIST Framework V2 collaboration/development/input with SGIP organizations –Identifying key testing and certification programs to address in 2011 –Creating conceptual architecture based on prior work; conceptual model, national goals workshops, and requirements workshops April 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PMO/2011-04_SGIP_Monthly_Report_FINAL_V1.0.pptx

18. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Timeline Status PAP 6 PAP 8 PAP 14 PAP 18 PAP 3 PAP 4 PAP 7 PAP 8 PAP 9 PAP 11 PAP 12 PAP 13 PAP 15 PAP 16 PAP 17 Develop Requirements SSO Standards Development Milestone: Requirements Handoff Milestone: GB PAP Initiation Milestone: Standards Handback Milestone: GB/SGIP Vote Reviews: PAP, CSWG, SGAC, PMO Milestone: Close PAP PAP Closure Paperwork Milestone: SSO Identified PAPWG Startup Milestone: Plenary Vote Milestone: Post to Catalog or IKB GB Recommendation GB Decision Plenary Decision PAP 0 PAP 1 PAP 2 PAP 10 PAP 11 Note: Some PAPs are in multiple places due to the status of separate standards they are involved in. PAP 5 PAP 11 PAP 12 PAP 13 PAP 15 PAP 16 PAP 18

19. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission =Complete/Closed=On Target=Late =Tasking Complete=Caution Priority Action Plan ScheduleDeliverablesResources PAP 00 - Meter Upgradability Standard (TASKING COMPLETE) PAP 01 - Role of IP in the Smart Grid (TASKING COMPLETE) PAP 02 - Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid PAP 03 - Common Price Communication Model PAP 04 - Common Scheduling Mechanism PAP 05 - Standard Meter Data Profiles PAP 06 - Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables PAP 07 - Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines PAP 08 - CIM for Distribution Grid Management PAP 09 - Standard DR and DER Signals PAP 10 - Standard Energy Usage Information (TASKING COMPLETE) PAP 11 - Common Object Models for Electric Transportation PAP 12 - IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping PAP 13 - Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization PAP 14 - Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping PAP 15 - Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home PAP 16 - Wind Plant Communications PAP 17 - Facility Smart Grid Information Standard PAP 18 - SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and Coexistence May 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report PAP StopLight Status

20. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission PAP Planned Completions by Quarter April 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report 2009201020112012 PAP Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Highlights PAP 00 - Meter Upgradeability StandardX Remote meter upgradeability (COMPLETE). Bringing to GB for a vote in March. PAP 01 - Role of IP in the Smart Grid X IETF Smart Grid Internet Protocols RFC. GB recommended addition to CoS Dec 2010. (COMPLETE) PAP 02 - Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid X Wireless Guidelines Report (NISTIR) complete Dec 2010. Version 1 COMPLETE Jan 2011. Board introduction in April, 2011. Vote by GB in April. PAP 03 - Common Price Communication Model X Currently in public comment period at OASIS. Seeking more utility involvement. PAP 04 - Common Scheduling Mechanism X Out of final public comment period at OASIS. SDO voting soon. PAP 05 - Standard Meter Data Profiles X AEIC guideline completed. PMO requested additional work to address technical issues raised by 5 meter manufacturers. AEIC plans to meet with them in April. PAP 06 - Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables X Addressing scope to ensure alignment with NIST and PAP team objectives. Difficulty getting participation from vendors and utilities. PAP 07 - Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines X Awaiting standards handback from SDOs PAP 08 - CIM for Distribution Grid Management X Developing requirements affecting IEEE 1547 and IEC 61850-7-420 PAP 09 - Standard DR and DER Signals X Close to public review at OASIS. Seeking additional utility stakeholder involvement. PAP 10 - Standard Energy Usage Information X *NAESB Energy Usage Information Model complete in February 2011. PAP to close in Q1 of 2011. PAP 11 - Interoperability Standards to Support Plug-in Electric Vehicles X 2/3 SAE standards completed and voted on positively by Governing Board. Last standard should be done Q2-2011 PAP 12 - IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping X IEEE and IEC currently working on standards development PAP 13 - Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization X Requirements completed. Drafting standards in SDO committees. PAP 14 - Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping X Working on use cases and requirements PAP 15 - Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home X Completed BroadBand Coexistence. Working Narrow Band. BB standards under review, with GB introduction imminent. PAP 16 - Wind Plant Communications X Use cases and requirements complete. Guideline development by PAP team complete. Passing to SDO when maintenance team established. PAP 17 - Facility Smart Grid Information Standard X Facility Smart Grid Information Standard PAP 18 - SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and Coexistence X PAP has just started work; 1000013175 1 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PMO/2011-04_SGIP_Monthly_Report_FINAL_V1.0.pptx

21. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission CSWG Standards Review Queue 1.PAP 13: IEEE PC 37.238, IEEE 1588, and IEEE 61850-90-5 will complete in May. 2.PAP 18: SEP 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. Having issue getting the right copies of SEP 1.0 and 1.1. CSWG actively participating in PAP 18. 3.PAP 11: SAE J2847 needs updated final review. Awaiting SAE to provide approved version to post to ANSI portal. 4.PAP 15 (broadband requirements): IEEE 1901 and ITU-T G9972. Awaiting IEEE to provide approved copy of 1901 to post to ANSI portal. Also awaiting assistance from a representative to assist CSWG in exact scope of IEEE 1901 used in PAP 15. 5.PAP 12: IEEE 1815 (DNP3). Ready for review, but is low in queue. 6.PAP 16: IEC 61400-25 review requested, but CSWG awaiting details on which parts to review since there are many parts. April 2011 Activities - PMO Monthly Report

22. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Catalog of Standards Process July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 22 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCatalogOfStandards

23. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 23 Abstract: This work area investigates the strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and constraints of existing and emerging standards-based physical media for wireless communications. The approach is to work with the appropriate standard development organizations (SDOs) to determine the characteristics of each technology for Smart Grid application areas and types. Results are used to assess the appropriateness of wireless communications technologies for meeting Smart Grid applications. http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless

24. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 24 PAP2 Links PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5) Contents of this topicUseful Hot LinksAbstract:Abstract: Status of PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5) Task Details: Description: Objectives: Why: Where: Who: 2011 Upcoming Meetings –May 10 - Teleconference 2:30pm ETMay 10 - Teleconference 2:30pm ET –May 24, June 7, June 21, July 5, July 19, Aug 2, Aug 16, Aug 30 - Teleconference 2:00pm ETMay 24, June 7, June 21, July 5, July 19, Aug 2, Aug 16, Aug 30 - Teleconference 2:00pm ET –July 12-14, 2011 - SGIP Summer Meeting, Montreal CanadaJuly 12-14, 2011 - SGIP Summer Meeting, Montreal Canada

25. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 25 Subscription to NIST PAP#2 To see the complete NIST Priority Action Plan list go here: http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans#Individual_ PAP_Listshttp://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans#Individual_ PAP_Lists To subscribe to PAP#2 mailing list go here: http://www.smartgridlistserv.org/cgi/wa.exe?SUBED1=SGIP -PAP02WG&A=1http://www.smartgridlistserv.org/cgi/wa.exe?SUBED1=SGIP -PAP02WG&A=1

26. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 26 OpenSG SharePoint Documents http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Docum ents/Forms/AllItems.aspxhttp://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Docum ents/Forms/AllItems.aspx

27. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 27 NIST Timeline (Anticipated) Release of draft 0.6 Draft 0.5 July 28, 2010 Call for Input to Section 6 August 4, 2010 End of draft 0.5 review period September 15, 2010 December 3, 2010 November 4, 2010 OpenSG + PAP2 meeting, Fort Lauderdale SGIP face-to-face, St Louis Tentative PAP 2 meeting September 16, 2010 End of draft 0.6 review period September 30, 2010 October 29, 2010 Release of Version 1 January 15, 2011 Extended edit period Release of Version 2 ? December 2011 ? Continuation of project to extend findings August, 2009Project initiation

28. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 28 NIST Timeline (Anticipated) Release of Version 1 January 15, 2011 Release of Version 2 ? December 2011 ? Continuation of project to extend findings

29. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 29 PAP#2 Version 1 Guideline for Assessing Wireless Standards for Smart Grid Applications Version 1.0 released Jan 13, 2011 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Objective3/NIST_PAP2_Guid elines_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standards_for_Smart_Grid_ Applications_1.0.pdfhttp://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki- sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Objective3/NIST_PAP2_Guid elines_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standards_for_Smart_Grid_ Applications_1.0.pdf

30. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 30 Priority Action Plan for Wireless communications (PAP#2) Activity Summary Calls every two weeks – details on NIST Twiki Version 1 paper approved by SGIP board Procedures approved Current primary tasks Propagation model Census Tracks Re-work Section 4 - and Matrix material

31. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission 2011 NIST PAP2 Meeting History May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 31 Date & TimeAgenda & Slides PresentedApproved Meeting Minutes Date & TimeAgenda & Slides PresentedApproved Meeting Minutes 6/21/11 2:00PM ETDownloadDownload (unapproved) 6/07/11 2:00PM ETDownload 5/24/11 2:00PM ETDownloadDownload, Detailed Framework Proposal (Cunningham)Detailed Framework Proposal (Cunningham) Download 5/10/11 2:30PM ETDownloadDownload, Framework Proposal (Cunningham), Propagation Models (Gray), Spreadsheet of Propagation Models (Gray)Framework Proposal (Cunningham)Propagation Models (Gray)Spreadsheet of Propagation Models (Gray) Download 4/26/11 2:00PM ETDownload 4/12/11 2:30PM ETDownload 3/29/11 6:00PM ETDownloadDownload, Rural Area Propagation Analysis, SpreadsheetRural Area Propagation AnalysisSpreadsheet Download 3/10/11 8:00AM PTDownload 2/25/11 3:00PM ETDownloadDownload, PAP02 Proposed Operating ProceduresPAP02 Proposed Operating Procedures Download 2/11/11 1:00PM ETDownload http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless

32. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission PAP2 Work Proposal July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 32 http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/SG-NET%20PAP%20work- in-progress/PAP02-post-assessment-v1.0-work/PAP02-Extnd-work-framework-r0.3.pdf

33. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission It is important to the utility companies to get some kind of equipment count that they can use to calculate their capex/opex. This is a reasonable request. However, as I indicated in one of my emails below, the best ATIS can do is to provide cell/sector count. The rest of the network is very access specific and, even worse, it is implementation specific in that access technology. For example, in LTE, we know how many logical entities we need for the core network to support n cells/sectors. These logical entities, however, can be implemented in one or many boxes. Standard does not dictate how the functional elements are to be implemented which results in different configurations depending on the infrastructure manufacturer. I would like to open up the discussion to other interested parties/SDOs. I am curious to hear if it is possible to calculate the actual equipment count in other access technologies – beyond the cell/sector calculation. I realize that the timing is not the best since a number of folks are on holidays for the long weekend. But, I thought it may be good to get this email out before our PAP02 call next week. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 33 PAP2 COMPLETION PLANS

34. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission It is important to the utility companies to get some kind of equipment count that they can use to calculate their capex/opex. This is a reasonable request. However, as I indicated in one of my emails below, the best ATIS can do is to provide cell/sector count. The rest of the network is very access specific and, even worse, it is implementation specific in that access technology. For example, in LTE, we know how many logical entities we need for the core network to support n cells/sectors. These logical entities, however, can be implemented in one or many boxes. Standard does not dictate how the functional elements are to be implemented which results in different configurations depending on the infrastructure manufacturer. I would like to open up the discussion to other interested parties/SDOs. I am curious to hear if it is possible to calculate the actual equipment count in other access technologies – beyond the cell/sector calculation. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 34 PAP2 COMPLETION PLANS

35. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission DRAFT1D CANDIDATE FOR V5.0 REQUIREMENTS TABLE HAS BEEN POSTED IN THE SG NETWORK TF PAP WORK-IN-PROGRESS "RQMT-TABLE-WIP" FOLDER. THIS VERSION MERGED THE PREVIOUS DRAFT1C 2ND TAB OF ADDITIONAL PAYLOADS INTO THE 1ST TAB "REQMTS-COMBINED" AND ALL OF THE "RQMT REF" CELLS HAVE BEEN POPULATED WITH VALUES. THE PREVIOUS HIDDEN COPY OF PIVOT TABLES HAVE BEEN UPDATED, AND THIS VERSION IS SUITABLE FOR USE BY THE REFERENCE DIAGRAM TO REQUIREMENTS TABLE MACRO VETTING TOOL THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED. KEY STATS: 19 PAYLOAD-GROUPINGS (USECASES) 204 PAYLOADS 500 PAYLOAD-PARENT-SETS 7877 REQUIREMENT ROWS (INCLUDING PARENTS AND 2 ROWS FLAGGED FOR DELETION) FOLDER OpenSG Payloads July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 35 http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fUtiliComm%2fShared%20Documents%2fSG%2dNET% 20PAP%20work%2din%2dprogress%2fRqmt%2dTable%2dwip&FolderCTID=&View=%7bDB95205C%2d1142%2d45B1%2d97C0%2dA4DD7F9EC4D A%7d

36. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission ITU SMART GRID LIAISONS WG18 Documents https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0058-00-0000- summary-of-itu-r-documents.pptx https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/11/18-11-0049-01-0000- working-document-towards-a-preliminary-draft-new-report- itu-r-sm-smart-grid.docx July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 36

37. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission SAMPLE FROM 049R1 Smart grid communication network technologies Various types of communication networks may be used in smart grid implementation. Such communication networks, however, need to provide sufficient capacity for basic and advanced smart grid applications that exist today as well as those that will be available in the near future. Assessing communications needs of various smart grid applications requires an understanding of 1) the “control loop” timeline of the application, 2) the amount of data that needs to be transferred at any particular time, 3) the number and location of devices with which communications must be maintained, and 4) the overall communication capacity of the proposed communication system. An application’s timeline and tolerance for latency in transferring and analysing data or control signals is critical to determining appropriate communications capability. For example, the gathering of metering data for daily meter collection can tolerate a latency period of many hours (and even a period of several days in the case of monthly billing). But real-time, control-oriented applications such as voltage control, integration of distributed generation resources, and distribution switching require latency periods of no more than two seconds. The control loop timeline refers to the overall length of time to make a decision and initiate action relevant to a particular control application. For instance, a control decision that needs to be made with real-time information every 30 seconds cannot utilize a communications link that takes 60 seconds to transfer the related data. For example, distributed protection systems use multiple isolating switches and relays that disconnect power from a section of the electric distribution system in the event of a failure or short circuit. Such disconnection helps reduce the size and impact of any resulting outage, prevent widespread damage to the system, and minimize public safety hazards. In order to make control decisions, these systems rely on widely dispersed devices that access information about real-time conditions at other devices connected to the distribution grid. Distributed protection systems respond to events of only several milliseconds in duration and must communicate information just as quickly in order to perform their functions effectively. July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 37

38. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission July 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 38

39. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 39 May 24 - Teleconference 2:00pm ET Agenda & Presentation Detailed Framework Proposal (Cunningham) June 7, June 21, July 5, July 19, Aug 2, Aug 16 - Teleconference 2:00pm ET July 12-14, 2011 - SGIP Summer Meeting, Montreal CanadaSGIP http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/Presentation_05242011.pptx http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/Frmwrk-Tool-Dtls-r0.1.xls

40. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission PAP2 Framework Comments The following is derived from a discussion conducted in the IEEE 802 meetings held May 9-13. The document used during the meeting can be found at: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0720-02-0000- smart-grid-ad-hoc-may-2011.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/11/11-11-0720-02-0000- smart-grid-ad-hoc-may-2011.ppt These slides further explain the understanding on what is being asked for in the Framework document and provides some views on how those requirements might be fulfilled. May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 40

41. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline-1 In order to analyze an operational scenario we would need to have additional information on the number of nodes and their physical relationship. For example, in the DAP example below, how many nodes are there, where are they and what is the characteristic terrain class within which they are located? May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 41 Answer: The method used to compute the number of nodes an area will be based upon area x density. For example, if the area under consideration is 1 square miles and the density is 200 nodes per square mile then there would be 200 nodes in the area. The location will not be “placed” or copied from an actual map. However their locations in the grid space could be calculated using a pair of x-y random number generators. To ensure that all SDO’s analyze the same problem, the node location calculations should be performed exactly once for each scenario and the grided node locations would be fixed and common for all rounds of analysis for all SDOs and technologies. 200 node example generated with random numbers

42. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- 2 Can it be assumed that all analysis would be based upon single technology deployment. Was there an expectation that a mixed technology deployment be analyzed? May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 42 Analyses will be performed using a single deployment technology.

43. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- 3 The analysis of the suitability of a deployment requires a calculation of a link budget. Link budget calculations require using radio performance numbers that are not defined by technology standards documents but are vendor specific. Hence, there may be some differences between individual suppliers’ radio performance numbers. It is proposed that each technology use a single representative set of radio performance numbers. The chosen set of parameters needs to be specified and approved by PAP2. Additionally, the parameter values would be proposed by each SDO and approved by PAP2. E.g. Receive Antenna pattern and gain profile Transmit Antenna pattern and gain profile Receiver sensitivity Transmit power May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell It is proposed that each technology use a single set of radio performance numbers that represent best practice implementations. It is typically true that radio technology offer a range of functional modes. Perhaps the most familiar reason for the modes being the ability to optimize data rate at a given range (which translates to rate at a given link margin). Step 1 would be to agree on the set of parameters within PAP2. Step 2 would involve each SDO proposing the values they would use for the selected parameters. Step 3 would be PAP2 approval of the SDO specific parameter values for each mode of operation to be analyzed. Analyses will be performed using a single set of parameter values for each operational mode.

44. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- 4 The analysis of deployment performance is presumed to be based upon a point to point relationship between a transmitter receiver pair. No analysis of repeaters or mesh links would be performed. May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 44 Analyses performed using a DAP to node model would be denoted as Phase 1 and should be provided by each SDO. However, technologies providing repeater or mesh capabilities would most likely wish to produce Phase 2 analyses based upon these additional capabilties. Note that an additional requirement for meaningful comparison of Phase 2 results will be unambiguous definitions of terms such as “repeater “ and “mesh” as these were not established in Guideline Version 1. Phase 1 Analysis

45. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline – 5d The analysis of deployment performance could be based upon only the relationship between a transmitter receiver pair with messages being transferred from one radio MAC to another. Unfortunately this approach would not provide realistic throughput or latency analysis. Realism requires the inclusion of MAC behavior to represent both technology standard features and typical implementations. May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell PHY MAC PHY MAC It is proposed that the PAP2 community needs to review parameters for inclusion. Candidates include: MAC queues, Buffer overflows, Packet loss/retry, transport protocol reliability (e.g. UDPvs http- ACK/retry), Packet size/fragmentation, media access/collision/backoff/retry, latency, etc. Step 1 would be to agree within PAP2 on the set of behavioral characteristics to be used. Step 2 would involve each SDO proposing the values they would use for the selected parameters.. Analyses will be performed using a single set of parameter values for each operational mode.

46. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- 6 There is no data traffic volume specified. It is presumed that some portion of the OpenSG requirements would be selected to quantify the representative data traffic to be used for analysis. Please identify the traffic flow. May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 46 Node quantity and type will be generated as generally described in Guideline #1. The network traffic will be determined by selecting a number of transaction types from the OpenSG Requirements spreadsheet.

47. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- 7 The initial “Framework Basics” document states: Minimum output: quantity of wireless std/tech/spectrum network gear required by endpoint density category, incremental gear type/count for RF propagation factors & engineering work-arounds for subscribers, and no endpoint coverage conditions May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 47 Using the analysis guidelines 1-6 the results will show: How many nodes are reachable How many (which?) nodes are actually designated as serviceable and are included in the performance analysis Packet reliability for each serviceable node Data throughput for serviceable node System latency

48. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Framework Observation & Guideline- - 8 How does the “Framework Basics” document relate to Guideline version 1? Where and How do the deliverables called for fit into the context of Wireless Guidelines version 2? May 2011 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 48 The analysis results would be added to Wireless Guideline version 1 as a new Chapter.

49. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Update on Modified-Erceg/SUI Path Loss Model May 24, 2011 Prepared by Doug Gray Consultant to WiMAX Forum

50. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Outline Can Modified Erceg/SUI model be considered for lower (700 MHz) and possibly higher (6000 MHz) frequency? –Addresses question from Bill Godwin –Short answer: Yes, it looks reasonable Link Budget: The next step in wireless range prediction and coverage analysis 50

51. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Modified Erceg-SUI & Hata-Okumura at 700 MHz 51 BS Antenna: 30 m SS Antenna: 2 m Good agreement between Erceg B & C & Hata Suburban Good agreement between Erceg A & Hata Urban for Path Length > 3.5 km Within 10 dB for Path Length < 3.5 km Large difference between Hata Rural and Erceg Type C Hata-Okumura Model: Valid from 150 MHz to 1500 MHz BS Antenna >30 m (higher than rooftops)

52. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Modified Erceg-SUI & WINNER II at 6000 MHz 52 BS Antenna: 25 m SS Antenna: 1.5 m Good agreement between WINNER II (Urban) and Erceg (Type A) Large difference between WINNER Rural and Erceg Type C WINNER II Model: Formulation similar to Hata-Okumura Valid from 2000 MHz to 6000 MHz BS Antenna “much” higher than mean building height

53. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Summary of Common Large Scale Models 53

54. doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0975r1 Submission Link Budget: The Next Step for Range & Coverage Analysis System Gain (DL Data Channel, UL Data Channel, & Control Channels) –Technology Specific, Max EIRP may be frequency band-specific –BS & SS/terminal/actor: Tx Power, Antenna Gain, Rx Sensitivity, Smart antenna enhancements, etc Some SS parameters will vary with application –Account for SG requirements for BER & Minimum Cell-Edge Thruput Fade Margin –Value selected for desired SG Availability (99.9%, 99.99%, or ??) –Typical values: 8 to 12 dB Penetration Loss –Necessary for outdoor-to-indoor or indoor-to-outdoor transmission –Varies with frequency, wall material, & number of walls 54

55. Issues with Existing Simulations Typical methodology: 3GPP2, 802.16m, ITU-R M.2135, etc. Technology specific with focus on mobility SG requirements dominated by fixed terminals Cluster of 19 base stations with specific BS to BS spacing Typically close resulting in higher channel capacity Applicable for specific frequency band 900, 2000 MHz SG looking for solutions from 700 to 6000 MHz Generally depend on path loss models assuming high BS antenna height (above roof-top): Hata, Cost231, WINNER II, etc. Not consistent with SG requirements: Erceg-Modified a better choice Relatively few active users/terminals per sector/cell: 10 users per sector (30 per BS) is typical This is not representative of a typical SG deployment (ex: SMs will number in the 1000s) 55

56. Copyright 2011 WiMAX Forum. All rights reserved. Some Discussion Materials for July 5, 2011 PAP2 Call Prepared by Doug Gray Consultant to WiMAX Forum

57. Outline 1.Items that should be added or expanded in Version 2.0 – Section 5 Items include: Link budget, & recommended allowances for fading, interference, & bldg penetration loss Estimating channel capacity – w/o depending on technology-specific simulations 2.Prioritizing wireless performance features and attributes specifically for SG applications Section 4: Wireless Capabilities Matrix 3.Appendix 57

58. Link Budget Analysis System Gain (SysGn): Technology, vendor-specific – we’ll see a range based on the “standards”, antenna configurations, etc. Also SG application/usage-specific Rx Sensitivity related to required BER and cell-edge data rate Minimum of DL, UL, or Control Channel Fade Margin (F m ) Interference Margin (I m ) Penetration Loss (L p ) Link Budget (LB): LB = SysGn – (F M + I m + L P ) 58 Can be a large number – big impact on range

59. Fading and Fade Margin Shadow fading – slow or medium-term fading Primarily due to obstructions Log-Normal Distribution May vary with terrain-type: Urban, Suburban, Rural, Indoor, etc Fast fading Primarily due to multipath (greater with mobile users) Rician distributed when dominant signal is present (LoS or Near LoS) Rayleigh distributed when no dominant signal present (sum of Gaussian variables) Different fade margins may be necessary for different technologies Impact of fading mitigated by various technology attributes 10+ dB may be necessary to achieve desired availability Significant impact on range and coverage 59

60. Log-Normal Shadow Fade Margin – Some Examples 60 ReferencePL ModelUrbanSuburbanRuralOutdoor- Indoor 3GPP2 Hata8.9 dB ITU-R M.1225 (Guidelines for IMT-2000) 10 dB12 dB NGMN 8 dB ITU-R M.2135 (Guidelines for IMT-Advanced) 6 dB8 dB IEEE 808.16m Cost2318 dB 7 dB Various Papers 3.2 dB to 10 dB 5.56 dBUp to 11.2 dB

61. Interference Margin Interference Margin (I m ): Self-interference and inter-operator interference (in some bands) Will differ with selected frequency reuse pattern Impacted by BS to BS spacing (closer spacing – greater potential for self-interference) May differ with technology DFS, etc Typical values ≤ 0.5 dB for Reuse factor of 3 to ≥ 2 dB for a reuse factor of 1 61 Chan A Chan C Chan B Reuse 3 Each sector has dedicated channel Requires more spectrum Chan A Reuse 1 One channel reused in each sector Must manage inter-sector interference

62. Penetration Loss Penetration Loss (L p ): For indoor to outdoor transmission Will vary with: Frequency Wall material, thickness, number of walls, & angle of incidence ITU-R M.1225 OD to ID Generic Model predicts 11-12 dB at 2000 MHz with Std Dev = 8 dB NTIA Report 94-206 at 900 MHz 62 Measurement VenueMeanStd Dev Storeroom with metal siding24.3 dB6.3 dB NTIA Radio Bldg: 2 to 3 walls18.9 dB6.4 dB NTIA Radio Bldg: > 3 walls28.8 dB5.1 dB Residence (one wall)3.2 dB5.4 dB Residence (two walls)6.6 dB

63. Going Forward Version 2 should provide a table of suitable or recommended values for: Fade margins Interference Margin Penetration Loss Question 1: Can we come to a consensus within PAP2 for the above via published reports, papers, field experience, etc.? I think we can Question 2: How to fairly estimate channel capacity w/o using technology-specific simulations? 63

64. Estimating Channel Capacity: Three Alternatives 1)Accept estimates from SDOs based on their specific evaluation methodologies a)Parameter assumptions not consistent with SG use cases b)Results in apples-to-oranges comparisons 2)Develop a simulation methodology within PAP2 specific to SG to apply to all wireless alternatives a)Time-consuming process & may be difficult to reach consensus b)Probably beyond the scope of PAP2 - Version 2 3)Use a coverage area vs. S/N ratio approach a)Assumes uniform distribution of stationary end-user terminals b)Assumes all terminals are non-LOS c)Requires a table of S/N vs. data rate for each technology 64

65. S/N Ratio Increases with Decreased Range 65 Erceg model predicts 57.85dB per decade at 1800 MHz for Type A terrain with 10m BS antenna height Value decreases with higher BS antenna height 3.5 dB S/N at cell edge corresponds to Rx sensitivity for QPSK with ½ coding (1.0 bit/Hz) -4.3 dB S/N at cell edge corresponds to Rx sensitivity for QPSK with ½ coding & 6 repetitions (0.17 bits/Hz) Range and coverage area is dependent on link budget and required cell-edge data rate

66. Copyright 2011 WiMAX Forum. All rights reserved. Look-Up Table Required for each wireless technology WiMAX Example: TDD 10 MHz Channel BW 1024 sub-carriers DL/UL Ratio = 1.05 Permutation = AMC 768 data sub-carriers Rates shown in table are net after FEC, pilot, and control carriers 66

67. Estimating Average Channel Capacity Over Coverage Area 67 Graph for WiMAX with10 MHz TDD channel, DL:UL ratio = 1.05 & AMC permutation For a 2.24 Mbps channel UL data rate at cell edge, avg UL channel capacity is 8.53 Mbps For a 0.37 Mbps channel UL data rate at cell edge, avg UL channel capacity is 4.66 Mbps 45% increased range but lower channel capacity  UL Channel capacity is the “area” under the curve – (I used area increments of 10%)  Result takes account Terrain Type and BS antenna height  The range and coverage area are dependent of link budget and frequency

68. Section 4: Wireless Features Matrix Can we prioritize the wireless features? High, Medium, or Low Some examples: UL data rate & capacity more important than DL capacity Cell edge data rate more important than channel peak rate Mobility performance is not a high priority What role and priority for video surveillance with regard to security and disaster recovery? Etc., etc. There may be differences between WAN, FAN, & HAN Priorities will give SDOs areas on which to focus or provide more information Will indicate areas that may need more detail or explanation in Version 2 of the “Wireless Guidelines” document 68

69. Copyright 2011 WiMAX Forum. All rights reserved. APPENDIX 69

70. Copyright 2011 WiMAX Forum. All rights reserved. Estimating Channel Capacity: Slide 12 in Tabular Form 70

71. Issues with Existing Simulations Typical methodology: 3GPP2, 802.16m, ITU-R M.2135, etc. Technology specific with focus on mobility SG requirements dominated by fixed terminals Cluster of 19 base stations with specific BS to BS spacing Typically close resulting in higher channel capacity Applicable for specific frequency band 900, 2000 MHz SG looking for solutions from 700 to 6000 MHz Generally depend on path loss models assuming high BS antenna height (above roof-top): Hata, Cost231, WINNER II, etc. Not consistent with SG requirements: Erceg-Modified a better choice Relatively few active users/terminals per sector/cell: 10 users per sector (30 per BS) is typical This is not representative of a typical SG deployment (ex: SMs will number in the 1000s) 71

72. Copyright 2011 WiMAX Forum. All rights reserved. 72